GENIUS FORUMS

This topic is as close to pure philosophy as is possible, because it is philosophizing about philosophy, but even this is impure because philosophy is the love of wisdom or knowledge, and wisdom or knowledge must be about something.

For example, a person can display wise money management if they know how money works. This person either philosophized about money, or knowledge and an effective system of money management was obtained through rote memory. A person could philosophize about money and not apply it (causing one to wonder how much love there is there about the knowledge, and negating the wisdom part because wisdom involves showing good judgement), nevertheless he is philosophizing about money.

A person could philosophize about relationships (which does not mean just men-women, men-men, women-women, etc., but also people-environment, esoterics-people, treatment of people-people, environment-environment, etc.), but again, one is philosophizing about something else.

I propose that philosophy can not be persued single-mindedly, but only as a multi-tasking project because of the nature of philosopy. Without at least a second component, philosophy is empty and meaningless.

Philosophy is concerned primarily with truth - the underlying truth of all things. It is the one truth which some people call God, or Buddha-nature, or the Infinite, or the Absolute, etc.

In sharp contrast academic philosophy is concerned with thinking about a whole range of subjects without knowing the underlying truth.

a person can display wise money management if they know how money works.

A person can be worldly-wise. He might know how to be rich and happy at the same time. But this is not the same as real wisdom, since he doesn't know the one truth that underlies all things.

Only the sage, who knows the absoute Truth, can display truly wise money management, since only he is truly wise.

I propose that philosophy can not be persued single-mindedly, but only as a multi-tasking project because of the nature of philosopy. Without at least a second component, philosophy is empty and meaningless.

Jesus very wisely taught that one should "seek first the Kingdom of God."

From this position one can do all things wisely.

Kevin wrote:

Jesus very wisely taught that one should "seek first the Kingdom of God."

Yes, first both chronologically and as a sequence of importance.
He did say "seek first" not "seek only" the Kingdom of God.

Kevin wrote:

Only the sage, who knows the absoute Truth, can display truly wise money management, since only he is truly wise.

True. Now we are getting into where the wisdom part of philosophy is the least pure part of philosophy. The worldly-wise who is rich and happy (rather, has a degree of happiness that is satisfactory to him) is not as wise as the sage who has enough money to do as he pleases, does not obsess over the accumulation of wealth because it is in the use of money that much of its potential is tapped (although the security of a reserve has the value of peace of mind, and in some circles, power) and knows where to get more, and uses his time not solely on the accumulation of wealth but on a wise selection of persuits that optimize his existance as a spiritual being who happens to currently be having a human experience.

That's multi-tasking, not single-mindedness.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:He did say "seek first" not "seek only" the Kingdom of God.

"Seek first" because everything else happens automatically, effortlessly, and without compromising truth.

The worldly-wise who is rich and happy (rather, has a degree of happiness that is satisfactory to him) is not as wise as the sage

The worldly-wise are not necessarily wise at all. Wordly-wisdom and true wisdom are two completely different things. The worldly-wise tend to be interested in how to be happy in this world, and they do not put truth first. Rather, they use it in small quantities and only when it serves their purposes. By contrast, the wise person makes truth his number one priority, and sacrifices himself to it even if it causes him pain and poverty.

the sage who has enough money . . . and knows where to get more . . . , and uses his time not solely on the accumulation of wealth but on a wise selection of persuits that optimize his existance as a spiritual being who happens to currently be having a human experience.

That's multi-tasking, not single-mindedness.

The single-mindedness comes into play by his first seeking the Kingdom of God (enlightenment) and secondly by his never departing the Kingdom of God.

What the sage does with his time should be of no concern to you. Only seek first the Kingdom of God.

That is the meaning of the following teaching:

"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? (Matthew 6:26 NIV)"

Birds of course regularly starve to death. The point is, whether a sage does many things or few, whether he is rich or poor, thin or fat, healthy or unhealthy, none of these things should be of a concern to you, since becoming enlightened and aligning your life with Truth is all that should matter.

Funny that the next verse states " "which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature "
KS contadicts himself by first praising jesus words, true indeed and then implying that God lets birds starve

Jesus was God on this Earth .forget the prattle of men such as Matthew . KS see the light of Jesus's life not the teaching of inferiors

Don't you see Mel Gibson/The Book of Judas/The resurrection.all man-made rubbish dragging you away from what is GOD

Sorry to digress here on this topic

Kevin wrote:

quoting EI:
The worldly-wise who is rich and happy (rather, has a degree of happiness that is satisfactory to him) is not as wise as the sage
KS responded:
The worldly-wise is not necessarily wise at all.

Agreed. Quantifying for the purpose of espressing the concept mathematically:

wisdom of sage=10
worldly wise with some wisdom = x, where 10>x>0
total lack of wisdom=0

The following are true to my above statement: 10>x and 10>0.

Kevin wrote:

What the sage does with his time should be of no concern to you.

Probably false, depending on your definition of concern. Anyone with a desire to grow in wisdom should be cognizant of the actions of a sage to seek examples of wisdom.

Kevin wrote:

The point is, whether a sage does many things or few, whether he is rich or poor, thin or fat, healthy or unhealthy, none of these things should be of a concern to you

In judging the level of sagacity in regards to total wisdom, I do look at the whole picture. Otherwise, we are looking at what you earlier referred to as academic philosophy.

Kevin wrote:

becoming enlightened and aligning your life with Truth is all that should matter.

Now we are back at square one. Becoming enlightened and aligning with Truth can not be done in isolation; other topics (the "bigger picture") are pieces of Truth. All pieces of Truth must be incorporated to understand total Truth.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

What the sage does with his time should be of no concern to you.

Probably false, depending on your definition of concern. Anyone with a desire to grow in wisdom should be cognizant of the actions of a sage to seek examples of wisdom.

All you really need to know is that a sage will work for what he values.

But what does an enlightened person value? Does he care about the well-being of other people? Or is he only concerned about his own enightenment? Does he sit quietly meditating or does he race about the place doing stuff? There is only one sure way to find out. You must become enlightened yourself.

Kevin wrote al of the following quotes:

Does he sit quietly meditating or does he race about the place doing stuff?

Obviously, he does something. When David asked frank why he has not starved to death, then supplied the answer was because he ate, that was a good example of the fact that people have to so some things to survive. How much does a sage do versus how much does he meditate? A logical enough supposition would be that he meditates as much as he needs to and perhaps as much as he wants to. In a total sage, those two quantities would be equivalent, whether the specifics of how much time would equal zero or constantly (constantly meaning in conjunction with doing what he must to survive as well as any other activity he deems appropriate to his goals).

(corrected for spelling)

is he only concerned about his own enlightenment?

Not only, but primarily because he can not contribute to the enlightenment of others if his own light has gone out.

Does he care about the well-being of other people?

Yes.

what does an enlightened person value?

Truth and goodness. "Goodness" here refers to what I believe is a state that is sometimes referred to as The Kingdom of God, and other groups have different terms for.

In other words, "goodness" is an ethereal abstract that no two people would probably agree upon, much like love and The Chupacabra.

Tharan wrote:

In other words, "goodness" is an ethereal abstract that no two people would probably agree upon, much like love and The Chupacabra.

Although I don't agree that no two people would agree what goodness is, I can see where there would be much room for debate about all of the specifics of goodness.